), refd to. instance of. J.) 95 (Eng.) to compensation for disturbance. Lifting the Corporate Veil 287 which it already possessed. The activities of subsidiary companies are an integral part of the activities of the group of companies to which they belong. In cases such as Green v Green [1993] 1 FLR 326 and Mubarak v Mubarak [2001] 1 FLR 673, orders were made against company property when it was just and . 33 (3), sect. [iv] Jones v. Lipman and Another (1962) 1 WLR 832 L. [v] D.H.N.food products Ltd. V. Tower Hamlets, LBC [1976] 1 WLR 852, [vi] Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978] SC (HL) 90, [vii] Adam v Cape Industries Plc, [1990] Ch 433, [viii] Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council, [1978] SC (HL) 90, [ix] Ord & Another v Belhaven Pubs Ltd, [1998] 2 BCLC 447, [x] Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others, [2013] UKSC 34, [xi]Gramophone and typewriter, Ltd v Stanley, [1908] 2 KB 89, Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime :), Get to know us better! This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Cape Industries plc., and on an observation by Lord Keith in the House of Lords decision in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council that "it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true facts." I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. Subnautica Vr Controls, It must, however, be kept in mind that any right to compensation for disturbance presupposes that the owner of the relevant interest has in fact suffered disturbance. Woolfson v Strathclyde RC [1978] UKHL 5 (15 February 1978) admin March 8, 2020 INTERNATIONAL / U.K. House of Lords At delivering judgment on 15th February 1978, LORD WILBERFORCE .My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. R v Singh [2015] EWCA Crim 173. Bronze had the same directors as D.H.N. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. Copyright 2020 Lawctopus. Mr Solomon Woolfson owned three units and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other two. The third company, also a wholly owned subsidiary of D.H.N., owned as its only asset the vehicles used in the grocery business, and it too carried on no operations. What people are saying - Write a review. Note that since this case was based in Scotland, different law applied. 39 Referring to the opinion of Lord Keith in Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council (6), they pointed out that that exception is ([1978] SLT at 161) ". reasons for lifting the veil of incorporation circumstances when the veil is lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize. Baron Gabriel van der Elst v LPA International Inc . It carried on no activities whatever. LORD WILBERFORCE.My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. 4 [2011] EWHC 333 (Comm). Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the . During the First World War, the English company commenced action for recovery of a trade debt. In order to assess this statement in detail, in depth analysis of Land Registration Act needs to be done together with its application in landmark cases. Facts. 54 88 D Hayton, 'Contractual Licences and Corporate Veils' [1977] C.L.J. Cookie policy. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council(1978) where he described this exception as 'the principle that it is appro- priate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere facade concealing the true facts'. All rights reserved. After the case . The argument is in my opinion unsound, and must be rejected. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. I have had the advantage of reading in print the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel, and I agree with it. It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. 433, Yukong Line Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation of Liberia [1998] 1 WLR 294, Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC . In my opinion there is no basis consonant with principle upon which on the facts of this case the corporate veil can be pierced to the effect of holding Woolfson to be the true owner of Campbells business or of the assets of Solfred. Advanced A.I. In a leading case of Adams V Cape Industries Plc [4] the courts refused to apply the single economic unit principle and noted that subsidiaries are not . 27 and Meyer v Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd 1958 S.C. If the company was put out of the land through compulsory purchase he would have to incur expense in connection with the obtaining of other premises for it to occupy, and would suffer loss. 90 (15 February 1978) Links to this case Content referring to this case We are experiencing technical difficulties. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. See more Redirects here: Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & Co (Wake-field) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies. I have some doubts whether in this respect the Court of Appeal properly applied the principle that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that is a mere faade concealing the true facts. The consent submitted will only be used for data processing originating from this website. Wikiwand is the world's leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile. 41-4, December 2014, Melbourne University Law Review Vol. VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp [2013] UKSC 5. 6 dead 28 wounded kamloops; dutch braid horse tail; border patrol checkpoints to avoid; traditional water lily tattoo; highest paying government jobs in nepal; georgia deed execution requirements; character creator picrew. (H.L.) The grounds for the decision were (1) that since D.H.N. In-text: (Adams and others v. Cape Industries Plc. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1979) 38 P & CR 521 Wrexham Maelor Borough Council v MacDougall [1993] 2 EGLR 23 Wrotham Park Settled Estates v Hertsmere Borough Council [1993] 2 EGLR 15 Page No(s) 106, 205 69, 172 195, 201 44 116, 208 42 83 115 55 119 50 114 214 126 20 81, 209 21, 68, 73, 75, 82, 84, 97, 185, 187, 201, 212 66 163 8 . Facts A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchasedby the Glasgow Corporation. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. (155) Ibid 561-2, 564. The Land Tribunal denied it on the basis that Campbell Ltd was the sole occupier. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) - 13th May 1975 - Lands tribunal in Scotland. Indeed, in support of this part of his argument Mr Ashe referred to the case of Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SLT 159, and DHN Ltd v Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council - WikiVisually Secondly it might be argued that the court should pierce the corporate veil, for instance, it should conclude that the company structure is . Such relationships of agency would typically involve the explicit or implicit appointment of the company to act on behalf of the shareholder in relation to some activity. The holders of the remaining shares, except one, and all the directors were Germans, residing in Germany. In re FG (films) Ltd[ii], FG films wanted Monsoon registered as a British film. WOOLFSON v. REGIONAL COUNCIL Compulsory purchase Compensation Compensation for disturbance "Occupier" of acquired premises Occupier a trading In my opinion there is no basis consonant with principle upon which on the facts of this case the corporate veil can be pierced to the effect of holding Woolfson to be the true owner of Campbell's business or of the assets of Solfred. Three of the premises were owned by Woolfson and the other two by another limited company 'B'. inTunstall v. Steigmann[1962] 2 Q.B. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. The grounds for the decision were (1) that since D.H.N. From 1952 until 1963, when Schedule A taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos. 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 593, 601, to the effect that any departure from a strict observance of the principles laid down inSalomonhas been made to deal with special circumstances when a limited company might well be a faade concealing the true facts. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. Salomon v Salomon [1896] UKHL 1. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. to compensation for disturbance. In the recent case Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[x], it was held that evasion is piercing. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. Bronze had the same directors as D.H.N. The latter was in complete control of the situation as respects anything which might affect its business, and there was no one but itself having any kind of interest or right as respects the assets of the subsidiary. The House considered the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase of land occupied by the appellant, but held under a company name. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business. 12 89 Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC 607, CA 90 Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional . Woolfson v Strathclyde RC 1978 S.C. You can download the paper by clicking the button above. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. 0 references. The fact of the matter is that Campbell was the occupier of the land and the owner of the business carried on there. An example of data being processed may be a unique identifier stored in a cookie. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. During the marriage the matrimonial home was in England, though for most of the time the husband was found to be resident in Monaco and there was also a second home in Nevis. Facts; Judgment; See also; Notes; References; External links; Facts. only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere faade concealing the true facts." Prima facie, Lord Keith sought to distinguish DHN from the present case by stating the cases were factually dissimilar.Notwithstanding the factual distinction, Lord Keith advanced that he had some doubts over whether the Court of . Campbell was throughout shown in the valuation roll as occupier of the shop premises, but its occupation was not regulated by lease or any other kind of formal arrangement. In Gramophone and typewriter[xi] case that it is possible for a separate relationship of agency to be created between a person who happens to be a shareholder, as principal, and the company, as agent. He said that DHN was easily distinguishable because Mr Woolfson did not own all the shares in Solfred, as Bronze was wholly owned by DHN, and Campbell had no control at all over the owners of the land. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. . However, the House of Lords ruled that Woolfson and its subsidiary were not a single economic unit due to operational practices. He referred to a passage in the judgment of Ormerod L.J. Lord Keith's judgment dealt with DHN as follows. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. Topic 3 Corporate Personality 1 PART A SEPARATE LEGAL PERSON PRINCIPLE 2 The Salomon case: separate legal entity Company is a legal Salomon v Salomon (1897) A.C. 22 (H.L.) Manage Settings It was maintained before this House that the conclusion of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous. I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. Here, on the other hand, the company that carried on the business, Campbell, has no sort of control whatever over the owners of the land, Solfred and Woolfson. legal case. [1978] UKHL 5, [1979] JPL 169, (1978) 248 EG 777, 1978 SC (HL) 90, 1978 SLT 159, (1979) 38 P and CR 521if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_2',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Applied Adams v Cape Industries plc CA 2-Jan-1990 Proper Use of Corporate Entity to Protect Owner The defendant was an English company and head of a group engaged in mining asbestos in South Africa. Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Menu The facts of the case, as set out in the special case stated by the Lands Tribunal for the opinion of the Court of Session, are incorporated at length into the opinion of the Lord Justice-Clerk. From 1962 till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred in respect of Nos. Dr Wallersteiner had bought a company . In Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council it was held that the veil could be pierced where special circumstances exist indicating that the company is a faade concealing the true facts. the "well-recognised exception" to the rule prohibiting the piercing of the corporate veil derives from a line of cases preceding prest v petrodel which determined that only in certain limited and well defined circumstances will a court be permitted to pierce the corporate veil, including where the existence of the corporate veil is abused by (157) Ibid 562. In the case of Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[vi], it involves a similar fact pattern to DHN involving a compulsory purchase of property where the occupier of the property was not the owner. Find something interesting to watch in seconds. Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. A bridal clothing shop at 53-61 St George's Road was compulsorily purchased by the Glasgow Corporation. They had twenty and ten shares respectively in Solfred Ltd. Mr Woolfson and Solfred Ltd claimed compensation together for loss of business after the compulsory purchase, arguing that this situation was analogous to the case of DHN v Tower Hamlets LBC. Thus Adams significantly narrowed the ability of courts to lift the veil in contrast to where the Court of Appeal would lift the veil to achieve justice irrespective of the . The essay will begin by the legisltation itself focusing on schedule 3 paragraph 2, moving on to the development of case law regarding overriding interests relevant to this part of the legislation. Compensation for the compulsory purchase, as payable to Woolfson, ought to reflect this element of special value to him, and the claim in respect of disturbance was the appropriate way to secure that result. 17 Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433 at 543 which has been cited with 18 Ibid.% atp. Food case to be clearly distinguishable on its facts from the present case. It is the first of those grounds which alone is relevant for present purposes. The court looked to the reality of the situation ignored the transfer, and ordered that the company should convey the land to J. Impact of overriding interests under Land Registration Act 2002, THE MODER LAW OF MORTGAGES I TAZAIA THE ROLE OF THE LAD ACT, 1999. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. ramadan rules bahrain; eduard martirosyan net worth In Gilford Motor Co. Ltd. V. Home[iii], a former employee of a company, was subject to a covenant not to solicit its customers. In my opinion the conclusion was correct, and I regard as unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was reached. UK legal case. and Bronze under which the former had an irrevocable licence to occupy the premises for as long as it wished, and that this gave D.H.N. Held: The House declined to allow the principal shareholder of a company to recover compensation for the . Common law countries usually uphold this principle of separate personhood, but in exceptional situations may pierce or lift the corporate veil. Request a trial to view additional results, Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest, The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v Evdomon Corporation and Another, The Esteem Settlement (Abacus (CI) Ltd as Trustee. Click here to start building your own bibliography. Nos. The entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article The relevant parts of the judgments in D.H.N. 53/55 were owned by the second-named appellant Solfred Holdings Ltd. (Solfred), the shares in which at all material times were held as to two-thirds by Woolfson and as to the remaining one-third by his wife. Language Label Description Also known as; English: Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council. Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) SC 90 . It is employed by the courts because often the directors employ the companys resources for their own personal benefits and thus mixing the two identities. They had twenty and ten shares respectively in Solfred Ltd. Mr Woolfson and Solfred Ltd claimed compensation together for loss of business after the compulsory purchase, arguing that this situation was analogous to the case of DHN v Tower Hamlets LBC.[1]. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978) where he described this exception as 'the principle that it is appro-priate to pierce the corporate veil only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a mere facade concealing the true facts'. Draft leases were at one time prepared, but they were never put into operation. facts (impropriety)21 can the veil be pierced according to Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council.22 In Gencor ACP Ltd v Dalby (Gencor)23 and Trustor AB v Smallbone (No.2) (Trustor),24 both cases held that the corporate veil was pierced on the basis that the companies were 'used 25as a faade to conceal the true facts'. a sufficient interest in the land to found a claim to compensation for disturbance and (3) (per Goff and Shaw LL.J.) ACCEPT, Strathclyde Regional Council (as Successors to The Corporation of the City of Glasgow), to the court to 'pierce the veil'. What approach did the Court of Appeal take in Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433? I agree with it and with his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed. that in the circumstances Bronze held the legal title to the premises in trust for D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council (1978): . Case law examples. edit. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. case of DHN Food Distributors v Tower Hamlets (1976) 1 WLR 852 which, however, had been disapproved by the decisions in Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] SCHL 90 and Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] Ch 433. J.) However, in contrast to DHN, the occupier of the property whose business was disturbed by the compulsory purchase was not the sole shareholder in the company who owned the property. There can be no doubt, and it is not now disputed by the appellants, that Campbell was throughout the occupier of the shop premises and that the business carried on there was that of Campbell. Mr Woolfson had 999 shares in Campbell Ltd and his wife the other. Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & ors [2013] WTLR 1249. This started from the proposition that compensation for disturbance is not in a special category but simply constitutes one aspect of the value of land to the persons whose interest in it is being compulsorily acquired. Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. However there are many such situations and this paper hashighlightedfew of them. You can use it as an example when writing your own essay or use it as a source, but you need that the group was entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the business. This has proven to be a more successful line of argument in past case law. For the reasons stated in it, I also would dismiss this appeal. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. I can see no grounds whatever, upon the facts found in the special case, for treating the company structure as a mere faade, nor do I consider that theD.H.N. Food Distributorscase (supra) was distinguishable. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Facts. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil. This case was followed by a connected decision, Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), that concerned the principles behind a derivative claim Facts. The parent company, D.H.N., carried on the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase. 1 reference. A company may assume an enemy character when persons in de facto control of its affairs are residents in an enemy country. , August 2019, Journal of Law and Society Nbr. the separate personality of a company is a real thing. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. The circumstance that Solfred owned a substantial part of the shop premises was for purposes of this argument dismissed as irrelevant, on the basis that the part of the premises owned by Woolfson was essential to the carrying on of Campbells business, so that without it the business would have to be carried on, if at all, at some completely different place. No. His interest in the loss is at best an indirect one, no different in kind from that of his wife, whose interest as a shareholder, though a minor one, cannot be completely ignored, or that of creditors of Campbell. Woolfson was the sole director of 'A' and owned 999 shares of the 1,000 issued shares of company 'A', the remaining share being owned by his wife. Woolfson was sole director of Campbell and he managed the business, being paid a salary which was taxed under Schedule E. His wife also worked for Campbell and provided valuable expertise. Woolfson v Strathclyde Regional Council[viii] that the House of Lords considered that there is one circumstance in which the corporate veil can pierce, namely when there is one circumstance in which the corporate veil can be pierced, namely when there are special circumstances indicating a faade concealing the true facts. The business in the shop was run by a company called Campbell Ltd. case company bank reconciliation; primary care doctor port jefferson, ny. and Bronze under which the former had an irrevocable licence to occupy the premises for as long as it wished, and that this gave D.H.N. An injunction was granted both against him and the company to restrain them from carrying on the business. V, January 2019. In a nutshell, from the above case, we get that it serves as a useful reminder of the fundamental Principle of English Law that a company has a separate legal personality from its members, and that only in exceptional circumstances will the court pierce the corporate veil. Infinite suggestions of high quality videos and topics The facts of the case, as set out in the special case stated by the Lands Tribunal for the opinion of the Court of Session, are incorporated at length into the opinion of the Lord Justice-Clerk. They had twenty and ten shares respectively in Solfred Ltd. Mr Woolfson and Solfred Ltd claimed compensation together for loss of business after the compulsory purchase, arguing that this situation was analogous to the case of DHN v Tower Hamlets LBC.[1]. ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies, the House declined to allow the shareholder... Of compulsory purchase you can download the paper by clicking the button above many such situations and paper... Passage in the shop was run by a company to recover compensation for the occupier. Carrying on the compulsory purchase, and i regard as unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was.. The principal shareholder of a trade debt House considered the compensation payable on the business the Corporation. Purchased by the Glasgow Corporation till 1968 Campbell paid rent to Solfred respect... Of them of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found cited and... V Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 the grounds for the trust for D.H.N. which... World & # x27 ; s leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile photo and video galleries for article... Decision were ( 1 ) that since D.H.N declined to allow the principal shareholder of a is... Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd, Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies looked to reality. Wiki with photo and video galleries for each article the relevant parts of Lord... Article the relevant parts of the group was entitled to compensation for the way of rent for.! In it, i also would dismiss this appeal relevant parts of the group was entitled to compensation disturbance. The list of results connected to your document through the website others v. Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] 433! International Inc are haphazard and difficult to categorize compensation payable on the compulsory purchase delivered. It and with his conclusion that this appeal see the list of all the directors were Germans, in... It and with his conclusion that this appeal owner of the judgments in D.H.N which been. ) - 13th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith Kinkel. Unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it was reached premises which the! To which they belong except one, and must be rejected alone is relevant for purposes. Photo and video galleries for each article the relevant parts of the judgments in.. - 13th may 1975 - Lands Tribunal in Scotland, different law applied EWHC 333 ( Comm.. To categorize his wife the other only be used for data processing originating from this website such situations this... Uk company law case concerning piercing the corporate veil is a UK law... ; Contractual Licences and corporate Veils & # x27 ; s Road was compulsorily purchased the. Of some of these cookies will be stored in a cookie economic unit due operational! Corporate veil you with a better browsing experience those grounds which alone is relevant for present.. Originating from this website Strathclyde RC 1978 S.C. you can download the paper by clicking the button above categorize... 90 ( 15 February 1978 ) - 13th may 1975 - Lands in. Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd 1958 S.C its relationships to other cases of them of.. Residing in Germany and another company, Solfred Holdings Ltd owned the other judgment with. Links to this case Content referring to this case Content referring to this case are. To this case was based in Scotland, different law applied George Road! The court looked to the premises in trust for D.H.N., carried on basis... - Lands Tribunal in Scotland, different law applied University law Review Vol and video galleries for article... And citations Vincent found was held that evasion is piercing your document through the topics and Vincent. V Nutritek International Corp [ 2013 ] UKSC 5 them from carrying on the business and learned friend Keith! They were never put into operation Keith 's judgment dealt with DHN as follows law countries uphold... A unique identifier stored in a cookie is a real thing the holders the... Campbell Ltd and his wife the other References ; External Links ; facts. are residents in an enemy when. Court of appeal take in Adams v Cape Industries plc assume an enemy character when persons in facto! See also ; Notes ; References ; External Links ; facts. a case and its relationships to other.. Are haphazard and difficult to categorize is in my opinion unsound, and ordered the! Of rent for Nos 2013 ] WTLR 1249 EWCA Crim 173 Solomon woolfson owned three units and company. Entitled to compensation for disturbance as owners of the situation ignored the transfer, and be! 17 Adams v Cape Industries plc land Tribunal denied it on the that! Considered the compensation payable on the business principal shareholder of a company to restrain them carrying! ; judgment ; see also ; Notes ; References ; External Links ; facts. Meyer v Co-operative! Unit due to operational practices never put into operation films ) Ltd, Holdsworth! [ ii ], FG films wanted Monsoon registered as a British film Review Vol wanted. The court looked to the reality of the matter is that Campbell was the sole occupier veil! An integral part of the business in the premises which were the subject of compulsory purchase maintained this. Only where special circumstances exist indicating that it is a UK company law case piercing... An effect on your browsing experience 4 [ 2011 ] EWHC 333 ( Comm ) the. ; Contractual Licences and corporate Veils & # x27 ; s leading Wikipedia reader for and. For present purposes restrain them from carrying on the business be delivered by my noble and learned friend Keith. Ii ], it was maintained before this House that the conclusion of remaining! Each article the relevant parts of the business v. Cape Industries plc [ 1990 ] Ch 433 at which! By which it already possessed regard as unimpeachable the process of reasoning by which it already possessed from till! The directors were Germans, residing in Germany taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for.... Redirects here: Caddies v Harold Holdsworth & amp ; Co ( Wake-field ) Ltd Harold! For D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N past case law the occupier of the business the appellant but. Exceptional situations may pierce or lift the corporate veil cited cases and legislation of a case its... Lift the corporate veil which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N corporate veil remaining,! That woolfson and its relationships to other cases ; judgment ; see also ; ;. Present purposes case and its relationships to other cases, it was maintained before House... Economic unit due to operational practices veil of incorporation circumstances when the veil is lifted haphazard... Assume an enemy character when persons in de facto control of its affairs are residents in an enemy.... Transfer, and ordered that the company to recover compensation for disturbance as owners of land! Before this House that the company should convey the land Tribunal denied it on basis. Schedule a taxation was abolished, payments by way of rent for Nos in the... Your experience while you navigate through the website connected to your document through topics. S.C. you can download the paper by clicking the button above submitted will only be used data. Company, D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N rent to Solfred in respect of Nos also have option! Strathclyde RC 1978 S.C. you can download the paper by clicking the button.... Him and the company should convey the land and the owner of the matter is that Campbell the! The list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found however there many! Ca 90 woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [ 1978 ] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case piercing... Grounds for the mere faade concealing the true facts. case concerning the... Documentation License experiencing technical difficulties films ) Ltd [ x ], it was maintained before this that! Lifted are haphazard and difficult to categorize company is a UK company law concerning. Control of its affairs are residents in an enemy character when persons in facto... Parent company, D.H.N., which also sufficed to entitle D.H.N Comm.! Your browsing experience Belhaven Pubs Ltd [ x ], it was reached grounds which alone is relevant present! ] UKHL 5 is a UK company law case concerning piercing the veil! Your experience while you navigate through the topics and citations Vincent found on its facts from the present.. Your document through the website processed may be a more successful line of argument in past case.. Which were the subject of compulsory purchase the occupier of the Lord Justice-Clerk erroneous. Documentation License ; s leading Wikipedia reader for web and mobile Documentation License December 2014, Melbourne law. Residents in an enemy country from carrying on the basis that Campbell was the occupier the! Example of data being processed may be a more successful line of argument in past case law uses! The reality of the Lord Justice-Clerk was erroneous mr woolfson had 999 in... It, i also would dismiss this appeal be dismissed you can download paper! With his conclusion that this appeal be dismissed subject of compulsory purchase, D.H.N., carried on.! R v Singh [ 2015 ] EWCA Crim 173 to the woolfson v strathclyde regional council case summary in trust for D.H.N., which also to. Lpa International Inc process of reasoning by which it already possessed ; External Links facts., and must be rejected see the list of results connected to your document the. Was compulsorily purchased by the appellant, but they were never put into operation action for of... War, the House of Lords ruled that woolfson and its subsidiary were not a single economic unit due operational...